living with multiple paradigms 1996

7/21/2019 Living With Multiple Paradigms 1996

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/living-with-multiple-paradigms-1996 1/30

Living with Multiple Paradigms: The Case of Paradigm Interplay in Organizational CultureStudies

Author(s): Majken Schultz and Mary Jo HatchReviewed work(s):Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 529-557Published by: Academy of ManagementStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258671 .

Accessed: 11/09/2012 11:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy

of Management Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aom

http://www.jstor.org/stable/258671?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/258671?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aom



?

Academy

of

Management

Review

1996, Vol.

21,

No.

2, 529-557.

LIVING

WITHMULTIPLE

ARADIGMS:

THE

CASE

OF PARADIGM

NTERPLAY

N

ORGANIZATIONAL

CULTURE

STUDIES

MAJKEN

SCHULTZ

Copenhagen

Business

School,

Denmark

MARY

JO HATCH

Cranfield

University,

England

Copenhagen

Business

School,

Denmark

This article

presents

a

new

strategy

for

multiparadigm

research

that

promotes

interplay

between

paradigms.

We

develop

interplay

across

the border of

functionalist and

interpretive

paradigms

and

use

organi-

zational

culture

studies

as an

example

of

how

interplay

affects

multi-

paradigm

relations.

In

addition to

clarifying

paradigm

contrasts,

the

article

points to connections

between

paradigms

by

taking

a

postmod-

ern

perspective.

Organizational researchers

in

the late

20th

century

face a

variety

of

paradigms with which to theorize their subject matter. This article devel-

ops

a

new

strategy

for

multiparadigm

research

that

promotes

paradigm

interplay.

Interplay

complements

well-known

contrasts

between

para-

digms with

connections

proposed

by postmodern

critiques of

modernist

social

science.

Considered

simultaneously,

these

contrasts and

connec-

tions

position the

researcher

to

move back

and

forth

between

paradigms

and

invite

researchers to see

and

use the

diversity of

organization theory

in

new ways.

The

paradigm

diversity

of

organization

theory

was

mapped by

Burrell

and

Morgan

(1979),

among

others, who

claimed

that

there are

at

least

four paradigms defining the field of organizational sociology. Burrell and

Morgan

took the

position

that the

paradigms

represent

incommensurable

approaches to

the

study of

organization,

which

means

that each

must be

separately

developed

and

applied.

Our

definition

of

paradigm

follows

Burrell

and

Morgan's-paradigms

are

sets of

ontological

and

epistemolog-

ical

assumptions-but

we do

not

accept

the

paradigm

incommensurability

argument.

Instead,

we

follow

those

who

recommend

that

researchers

chal-

This article benefited greatly from insights offered by Dennis Gioia, Kristian Kreiner,

Linda

Putnam,

Edgar

Schein,

and

Jim

Walsh

and

from

the

suggestions

made

by

three

anony-

mous AMR

reviewers.

An

earlier

version

of the

article

was

presented

at

the

annual

meeting

of the

Academy of

Management, Las

Vegas,

1992.

529



530

Academy

of

Management

Review

April

lenge and cross

paradigm

borders

(Gioia

&

Pitre,

1990; Hassard,

1988;

Parker &

McHugh, 1991;

Weaver &

Gioia,

1994;Willmott,

1990, 1993a,b).

We

prefer the

paradigm-crossing position

because we find

it

impossible

to

ignore the

multiplicity

of

perspectives

that make

up

our field

of

study

and

wish to take

advantage

of the

diversity

organization

theory

offers.

We

believe the debate

is

important

because

regardless

of whether

organiza-

tional

researchers

acknowledge

paradigmatic

assumptions,

they

make

and use them when

they

develop

or

apply

theory.

Our

denial of

incommensurability

does not mean that we

accept

an

integrationist view.

Although

it is difficult to find

organization

theorists

who

openly advocate

an

integrationist

position,

there are

many

who

prac-

tice

integration by

merging paradigms

without

respecting

their

differ-

ences. In this article, we explore the possibilities of paradigm crossing

as

a

third metatheoretical

position

that resists

both

incommensurability

and

integration.

We

contribute

a

new

paradigm-crossing

strategy

that

we

label

interplay,

defined

as the simultaneous

recognition

of

both contrasts

and

connections between

paradigms.

In

addition

to well-known

paradigm

contrasts

(e.g., differences

of

on-

tology

and

epistemology),

we

argue

that

significant

connections can be

made. In

this

article,

these

connections are

established within

postmodern

critiques that reveal several

characteristics held

in

common

by

modernist

paradigms.

Somewhat

ironically,

we

find

that

it

is

postmodernism

that

inspires interplay between paradigms. When

framed within

paradigm

contrasts, postmodernists either

ignore

paradigm boundaries as

mere

modernist

conventions

or deconstruct

paradigms

in

order

to expose

oppressed

oppositions

(e.g.,

Calds &

Smircich, 1991;

Kilduff, 1993;

Martin,

1990).

However,

through

the

connections

it

establishes

between

modernist

paradigms, postmodernism

is also

able to

contribute

constructively, as

opposed

to

deconstructively,

to

the

modernist

paradigm

debate.

In

this

regard,

interplay stands in

stark

contrast to

previous

uses of the

postmod-

ern

perspective.

We contend that paradigm interplay produces a new form of under-

standing

that

some

may

equate with

paradox.

However,

interplay

differs

significantly

from

previous

uses of

paradox in

organization

theory (e.g.,

Poole &

Van

de

Ven, 1989; Van

de

Ven & Poole,

1988) by

stressing

the

interdependent

relationship between

constitutive

oppositions.

We

argue

that

emphasis

on

the

interdependence of

opposed

elements

indicates a

contribution

of

interplay

to

cross-paradigm

thinking. We

are not

interested

in

accepting,

clarifying, or

resolving

the

contradictions

of paradoxes,

but

rather in

preserving

the tension

between

contrasts

and

connections at the

metatheoretical level in

order to

theorize

organizations

in new

ways.

In developing the interplay strategy, we limit our discussion to the

following

two

paradigms,

functionalism

and

interpretivism,

recognizing

that

we must

ignore

a

number

of

others in the

process. We

chose

functional-

ism, as

defined by

Burrell

and Morgan,

because this

has

been the

dominant

paradigm

within

organization

theory (Gioia

& Pitre, 1990;

Morgan & Smir-



1996

Schultz

and

Hatch

531

cich,

1980).

Interpretivism

was selected because

it offers the

greatest con-

trast

to

functionalism's

assumptions,

and

in recent

years

it has

received

increasing

research

attention,

particularly

in

organizational

culture

stud-

ies,

institutional

theory,

and in studies

of

organizational

identity,

learning,

and

cognition.

Simplifying

the issues

of

paradigm

crossing

to the case

of

crossing

between two

paradigms

helps

researchers

to

develop

the

inter-

play

strategy

in

an

explicit

way.

As several

multiparadigm

theorists have

demonstrated

(Gioia

&

Pitre,

1990;

Weaver &

Gioia,

1994;

Willmott,

1993a),

grounding

in a

specific

re-

search domain is

a

useful

first

step

toward

paradigm

crossing.

In

this

article,

we

ground

our

approach

in

organizational

culture

studies,

for

three

reasons.

First, many

culture

researchers evidence

consciousness

of

the

paradigm disagreements within organization theory (Alvesson & Berg,

1992;

Martin,

1992;

Martin &

Frost,

In

press;

Pondy,

Frost,

Morgan,

&

Dan-

dridge, 1983;

Putnam,

1983;

Schultz, 1995;

Smircich,

1983),

and

we

believe

this evidence

indicates that

organization

culture

studies

provide

a

rich

ground

upon

which

to

develop

our

interplay

strategy.

Second, the

para-

digm

disagreements

within

organization

culture

studies

have

been

espe-

cially

pronounced

in

the case of

functionalism

and

interpretivism.

Third,

our

familiarity

with the

development

of

organizational culture

studies

provides

intimate

knowledge of the

issues and

debates

that

constitute

both

functionalist and

interpretivist

approaches.

Although we

ground our

discussion in the example of functionalist and interpretive culture studies,

we

argue that

interplay

has

implications for

other

domains

than

culture

and for

crossing

other

paradigms'

borders

than

those

between

functional-

ism

and

interpretivism.

In

this

article

we

develop the idea of

interplay as a

new

strategy for

engaging with

multiple

paradigms.

First, we

present a

brief

overview of

the various

strategies

that

others

have

offered

for

handling

multiparadigm

relations.

Then

we use

paradigm

contrasts

between

functionalism

and

interpretivism

as

a

beginning

point for

developing

the

interplay

strategy.

From

there, we

examine

the

opposing

theme

of

connections

between

these

two

paradigms, using

postmodernism to

identify

the

connections.

We

then

formulate

interplay

as

a

metatheoretical

strategy

for

crossing

paradigms

and

discuss

the new

form

of

understanding

that

emerges from

interplay

in

relation to

the field

of

culture

studies.

In

this

context, we

will

illustrate

several

implications,

including

generality/contextuality,

clarity/ambigu-

ity,

and

stability/instability.

We

conclude

by

discussing

what

the

interplay

strategy

might contribute

to

other

domains

of

research

within

the field

of

organizational

theory and

to

the

paradigm

debate

within

organization

studies.

MULTIPARADIGM

ELATIONS

We

have

argued

that

students

of

organization

theory

are faced

with

multiple

paradigms

and that

it is

possible to

distinguish three

different

metatheoretical

positions for

doing

multiparadigm

research:

(a)

paradigm



532

Academy

of

Management

Review

April

incommensurability, (b)

paradigm

integration,

and

(c)

paradigm

crossing

(see Figure

1).

Paradigm

incommensurability

has been the

point

of

departure

for

most of the

paradigm

debate within

organization

theory.

The

incommensu-

rability position

argues

for the

separate

development

and

application

of

each

paradigm

(e.g., Jackson

&

Carter, 1991,

1993).

As Weaver and

Gioia

(1994)

demonstrated, the idea of

paradigm

incommensurability

originated

at the

beginning

of

this

century,

but within

organizational

theory

it

is

generally attributed to Burrell

and

Morgan

(1979).

Kuhn

(1970:

103)

also

discussed

paradigm

incommensurability,

but

in

the context

of

paradigm

revolutions rather

than

multiple

paradigms.

Burrell

and

Morgan

claimed

that differences

in

ontology,

epistemology,

and

methodology

as

well

as

assumptions about human nature construct insurmountable barriers be-

tween

paradigmatic

perspectives.

That

is,

each

paradigm

engages

a

unique

perspective

from

which

concepts

are

defined

and

theories

are

developed,

preventing

combinations of

concepts

or

analytical

methods

across

paradigm

borders.

Because each

paradigm

defines

a

different

do-

main

in

which

theories can

be

conceived, there is

little or

no

possibility

of

effective

communication

between their

adherents.

Paradigm

integration

is a

second

metatheoretical

position

described

by

Willmott

(1993a)

and

Reed

(1985).

From

this

metatheoretical

position,

it

becomes

possible to assess

and

synthesize a

variety of

contributions,

thus ignoring the

differences

between

competing

approaches and

their

paradigmatic

assumptions.

In

some

cases, the

integration

position

repre-

FIGURE

1

Metatheoretical

Positions

With

Respect to

Multiple

Paradigms

CROSSING

INCOMMENSURABILITY

INTEGRATION



1996

Schultz and Hatch

533

sents

simple

resistance

to

multiparadigm

thinking.

Pfeffer

(1993),

for

exam-

ple,

proposed

a

strong

hegemonic

argument

that advocates

abandoning

all but one paradigm in order to increase the influence of organization

theory

as

an

academic field. More

often,

however,

the

integrationist

posi-

tion

provides

an

overall

framework

that mixes

and combines

terms

and

implications

of

arguments

grounded

in

different

paradigmatic

assump-

tions without

considering

the

relationship

between

the

assumptions them-

selves.

We

argue the

necessity

to

define

a

third

metatheoretical

position,

which we

label

paradigm

crossing.

The

focus

of

the

crossing position

is

on how

multiple

paradigms

might

be

engaged

by

individual

researchers.

From

this

position,

the researcher

recognizes

and

confronts

multiple

para-

digms, rather than ignoring them as in the integrationist position, or refus-

ing to

confront them as

in

the

incommensurability

position.

The

result of

previous

attempts

to

cross

paradigms

has been

the

use

of

several

quite

different

strategies

for

conducting

multiparadigm

research. We

review

and

explicate

these

strategies

and

suggest

our

own,

which

we call

interplay.

According to the first

strategy,

which

we

label

sequential,

specific

paradigms

are

mutually

complementary

rather

than

exclusive.

Paradigms

operate

as

complements

by

revealing

sequential

levels

of

understanding

within an integrated research project. Within organizational research, Lee

(1991)

presented

a

sequential

multiparadigm

model,

in

which

interpretive

methods are used

prior to the

application

of

functionalist

methods, so

that

the

insights

derived

from

interpretive

studies

serve

as

inputs to

functional-

ist

research.

Similarly,

Gioia,

Donnellon, and

Sims

(1989)

demonstrated

that

functionalist

research

can

inform

interpretive

studies,

thereby

invert-

ing the

more

typical

sequence from

interpretivism to

functionalism.

The

sequential

strategy

allows

one

paradigm to inform

another;

however,

this

influence

operates

only in

one

direction.

Thus, the

sequential

strategy

constructs the relationship between paradigms as linear and unidirec-

tional,

although

it

can

move

in

either

direction.

A

second

strategy is

termed

parallel,

because

different

paradigms

are

all

applied

on

equal terms

rather

than

sequentially.

Hassard

(1988,

1991)

provided

an

illustration

of

the

parallel

strategy

in his

study

of

the

British

Fire

Service, in

which

he

applied a

theory and

methodology

from

each

of

Burrell

and

Morgan's

four

paradigms.

In

cultural

studies,

Martin

(1992:

5)

made

a

similar

agrument,

stressing

that each

paradigm must

be

applied

separately:

What

is to

be

learned

from

culture

research

is,

in

part, the

usefulness of

preserving

the

differences

between

these

social

scientific perspectives and deepening rather

than

eradicating,

the

conflicts

between

them.

According to

this

strategy,

maintaining

an

attitude of

tolerance

is

advocated, in

order to

enrich the

field

of

organization

studies

with

the

diversity

produced by

applying

different

paradigms.

The

parallel

strategy

allows the

researcher

to

compare

paradigms but

encourages



534

Academy of

Management Review

April

a hands-off'

policy by

emphasizing

differences and conflicts

between

paradigms

rather than similarities.

Although

sequential

and

parallel

strategies

leave the boundaries of

each

paradigm

intact, according

to

the

bridging

strategy,

the boundaries

separating paradigms

are more

permeable

than

proponents

of incommen-

surability admit.

The

ambition

of

paradigm

bridging

was articulated

by

Gioia

and Pitre

(1990),

who

argued

that there are transition

zones

between

paradigms

that disallow their

being

completely

isolated.

Paradigm

cross-

ing,

they proposed, is

accomplished

within

these transition zones

by

the

use of second-order theoretical

concepts

that act as

bridges.

Examples

of such second-order

concepts

include

structuration

(Giddens, 1976,

1979), negotiated

order

(Strauss,

1978),

and

organizing

(Weick, 1979).In an elaboration of the structuration argument, Weaver and

Gioia

(1994) argued

that structuration

theory

not

only

creates

transition

zones,

but

also

resolves other

classic divides

in

addition

to

the

agency/

structure

and

interpretive/structural-functional dichotomies. These

re-

searchers claim that

paradigm

boundaries like

objective/subjective, cau-

sation/meaning,

and

description/prescription

either

disappear

or are re-

placed by alternative social

inquiry.

Within

transition zones,

paradigms

become

indistinguishable to the

researcher.

Thus,

the

bridging

strategy

emphasizes

similarities

between

paradigms rather than

differences.

We develop a

fourth

strategy-interplay-as a new way

of

conducting

paradigm

crossing.

Interplay

refers to the

simultaneous recognition

of

both

contrasts and

connections between

paradigms and,

thus, to both the

differences and

similarities between

paradigms that are

emphasized

by

the

parallel

and

bridging

strategies, respectively

(Figure 2).As we argue

at

length

in

following sections of the

article, what is

essential to an

interplay

strategy

is

the

maintenance of

tension between

contrasts and

connections.

FIGURE 2

Basic

Interplay Strategy

Paradigm A

Paradigm B

CONTRASTS

W<:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

CONNECTIONS

pt|

| | | |

1fI/

/

CONNECTIONSI

/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I



1996

Schultz

and Hatch

535

The

interplay

strategy

differs

from

both

sequential

and

parallel

strate-

gies (and is similar to the

bridging

strategy)

in that the

permeability

of

boundaries between

paradigms

is

assumed.

The

parallel strategy invites

researchers to

look but not

touch,

that

is,

paradigm

boundaries

are

considered

to be insurmountable barriers

to

paradigm

exchange.

Re-

searchers can

produce

findings

within

any

paradigm,

but

are

intolerant

of

any

notion of cross-fertilization between

them.

The

sequential

strategy

also

assumes

nonpermeability

of

paradigm

boundaries; however,

in

this

case,

a

specific

form of

cross-fertilization occurs.

Researchers

using

this

strategy

transpose

the

findings

from studies conducted

in one

paradigm

into the theoretical

frameworks offered

by

another. This

transposition

allows the

findings

of

one

paradigm

to be

recontextualized and

reinter-

preted in such a way that they inform the research conducted within a

different

paradigm.

Interplay

differs from the

sequential,

parallel,

and

bridging

strategies

in

the nature of the

relationship

it

constructs

between the

researcher and

the

multiple

paradigms

that

it

specifies. The

sequential

strategy positions

the

researcher to

move

unidirectionally

from

one

paradigm

to

another.

Because the

parallel

strategy

asserts

that

paradigms

are

independent

of

one

another,

researchers

are forced to

separate

between

paradigms,

which

leads to the

emphasis on

differences

noted

above. The

bridging

strategy

places

the

researcher in

a

grey area

between

paradigms

(Gioia &

Pitre,

1990), a

position that

necessarily blurs

paradigm

differences and

thus

focuses

discussion on

similarities.

In

interplay,

the

researcher

moves back and

forth

between

paradigms

so that

multiple views are

held

in

tension

(see

Figure 2).

Thus,

interplay

allows for

cross-fertilization

without

demanding

integration,

which

sug-

gests

a

criterion for

selecting

between

the

crossing

strategies: If

one

wants

to take

advantage of

cross-fertilization

between

the

ever-growing

number

of

paradigms, while

maintaining

diversity,

then

interplay is

the

preferred

strategy

for

paradigm

crossing.

However,

there may

be

situations in

which

cross-fertilization is not desired, in which case one of the other strategies

could

be

more

useful.

For

instance,

when

a

researcher first

develops

or

explores

a new

paradigm, the

parallel

strategy

offers

the

advantage of

complete

separation, which

minimizes the

chances of

confusion

between

paradigms

by

offering a

point

of

differentiation

with

respect to

other para-

digms.

If

maintaining

diversity is not

an

issue,

then the

sequential

strategy

may be a

less

demanding

route

to

crossing

paradigms.

We

believe

that

the

interplay

strategy

has not

been

proposed

before

because the

assumption of

impermeable

paradigm

boundaries

reinforces

and

is

reinforced

by

either-or

thinking.

We

believe

that

paradigm bound-

aries

are

permeable

and

claim that

when

paradigm

contrasts

are com-

bined

with

paradigm

connections,

interplay

becomes

possible.

The follow-

ing

discussion of

connections

explores

paradigm

permeability,

whereas

the

discussion of

contrasts is

a

reminder

that

paradigm

differences

are

important,

too.

This joint

emphasis

on

both

contrasts and

connections



536 Academy

of

Management

Review

April

positions the researcher

for

interplay, which is then accomplished by

moving back

and forth between

paradigms, keeping

the

paradigms

in

tension.

PARADIGM

INTERPLAY

As explained previously,

we

ground

our theoretical

development

of

the interplay strategy

in

culture studies.

In

this

section,

we

analyze organi-

zational culture studies

in

order to

present

the contrasts and connections

between

functionalism and

interpretivism (Figure 3) and,

on this

basis,

to

demonstrate

interplay.

Paradigm Contrasts

The functionalist

paradigm

was derived from

systems theory

in

sociol-

ogy and anthropology, as represented by the works of Durkheim (1949/1893),

Radcliffe-Brown

(1952),

Parsons

(1951),

and Merton

(1957).

The

interpretive

paradigm

can be traced to

interpretive ethnography, phenomenology, and

semiotic

and hermeneutic traditions within cultural

anthropology, sociol-

ogy, folklore,

and

literary

criticism

(e.g., Barthes, 1972; Berger & Luckmann,

1966; Garfinkel, 1967; Geertz, 1973; Schutz, 1967). Because many distinctions

FIGURE 3

Interplays Between Functionalism and Interpretivism in the Domain of

Organizational Culture Studies

Functionalism

Interpretivism

/~zg~mt

CONTRASTS

Predefined

-

Emergent

Categorical

-

Associative

Convergent

m

-

Divergent

COEssence T

CONNECTIONS



1996

Schultz

and Hatch

537

between

functionalist

and

interpretive

paradigms

have been

elaborated

already

(e.g.,

Burrell

&

Morgan,

1979;

Gioia &

Pitre, 1990;

Putnam

1983;

Schultz,

1995),

our discussion

of distinctions

in this article

complements

and

extends

these

previous

ideas

by

focusing

on

applications

of the

para-

digm

contrasts to

culture

studies

(see

Table

1).

Analytical

framework.

Within

organizational

culture

studies,

function-

alism and

interpretivism

differ

in the

extent to which

they

define

an

analyt-

ical framework

prior

to

entering

the

organization

to be

studied. For

in-

stance, Schein

(1985,

1992) argued

that

cultures

in all

organizations

develop

in

relation

to

the

task areas of internal

integration

and

external

adaptation

that are essential

for

organizational

survival.

Other

predefined

analytical

frameworks

include the distinction

between

strong

and

weak

cultures

(Deal &Kennedy, 1982;Kilmann, Saxton, Serpa, &Associates, 1985;Saffold,

1988),

which

was

further

developed by

Kotter

and Heskett

(1992)

into the

notion of

cultural

adaptability

as a

variable for

analyzing

organizational

cultures. Denison

(1990)

also focused

on

adaptability

along

with

mission,

involvement, and

consistency.

Although

these

contributions

emphasize

different

dimensions or

variables

of

culture,

they

all

advocate

using

a

predefined

analytical framework

that can be

generalized to

all

specific

organizations

studied.

In

contrast,

interpretivism

follows an

emergent

development,

in

which

the

constructs

most

useful to

describing culture are

suggested

by the

analysis. In Kunda's (1992)

ethnographic

study of

Tech, the

notions

of

role

distance

versus

role

embracement

emerge

from

descriptions

of

how the

members

of

Tech

coped with

management's

attempts at

cultural

control.

Czarniawska-Joerges

(1992) presented

another

example

focused

on lan-

guage

in

its

specific use in

proverbs,

platitudes,

and labels

(Czarniawska-

TABLE 1

Contrasts

Between

Functionalist

and

Interpretive

Assumptions

Dimension

Functionalism

Interpretivism

Analytical

Framework

Predefined

and

universal:

Emergent

and specific:

Similar

levels and

functions of

Opportunties for

creation of

culture

are

documented in

meaning

are unique

to each

all

organizations

cultural

context

Model

of

Analysis

Categorical:

Associative:

Identification of

cultural

Reading

meanings and

elements and

discovering

exploring

the

associations

the

causal

relations

between

them

between

them

Analytical

Processes

Convergent:

Divergent:

Condenses

and

brings

Expands and

enriches

cultural

elements of

cultural

analysis

analysis

together



538

Academy

of

Management

Review

April

Joerges &

Joerges,

1990).

Furthermore,

the

findings

within the

interpretive

paradigm

often are

expressed

in terms of

emergent

images

and

metaphors,

such as

the

organization

as fortress

(Gagliardi, 1990),monastery (Larsen &

Schultz, 1990), and

prison

(Hatch

&

Ehrlich,

1993).

Mode of

analysis.

Functionalist

analyses

operate

primarily

in

a

causal

mode,

whereas

interpretive

analyses

develop

more often

in

an

associative

mode. Functionalist

analysis

is

conducted

by

filling

in

predefined

vari-

ables

and

mapping

the causal relations

between them. In

functionalism,

culture

is

often added to

the

list of

explanatory organizational

variables

such as

strategy,

technology,

and environment. For

instance,

Schein

(1992)

claimed

culture

is

constituted

by

basic

assumptions

and

values that

pro-

duce

the

surface

level of

cultural artifacts. Kotter and

Heskett

(1992)

investi-

gated the causal relationship between culture and economic performance.

In his

cross-national

study,

Hofstede

(1991)

demonstrated

how

cultural

differences

explain

national

variety

in

organizational

configurations.

Al-

though these studies are

formulated at

different

levels of

analysis, they

all

depend

upon

causal

arguments.

In

contrast to the

causal mode of

functionalist

analysis,

interpretive

analysis is

associative.

Interpretivists

explore

the

active

creation of

mean-

ing and the

ways

in

which

meanings

are

associated in

organizations.

In

this

mode

of

analysis, particular cultural

themes,

images,

and

metaphors

emerge

(Lakoff

&

Johnson,

1980;

Spradley,

1979).

For

instance,

in

Hopfl's

(1995)

study

of

British

Airways, ruptures

in

service behavior

were

meta-

phorically associated with

the

dramatistic

concept of

corpsing,

which

describes how

actors

fall out

of role.

Similarly,

Meyerson

(1991)

and Feld-

man

(1991)explored

how

ambiguity

in

organizations is

expressed

through

numerous

symbolic

constructions, such

as

stories,

humor,

and

drawing.

Exploring and

describing the

rich

character of

cultural

themes,

images,

and

metaphors

depends

upon the

researcher's

ability

to

make and

use

associations.

Analytical

processes.

In

both

functionalist and

interpretive

para-

digms, convergent and divergent thinking shape basic analytical pro-

cesses, but

in

each

paradigm these

processes are

used

differently.

Users

of

the

convergent

process aim

at

condensing

and

bringing

elements of

the

cultural

analysis

together;

they move

from a

relatively

unpatterned

appreciation

of

culture

to a

more

ordered and

less

bulky

representation.

For

instance,

Schein

(1985)

presented the

concept of a

cultural

paradigm

where

basic

assumptions

form an

interrelated

cultural core.

Empirical

appreciation of

this

cultural core

derives

from

studies of

artifacts and

values

where

multifaceted and

confusing

observations

converge on a

more

orderly

understanding.

Hofstede's

(1980;

Hofstede &

Bond,

1988)

work

similarly converges data from numerous national cultures into the five

analytical

dimensions

of

power

distance,

uncertainty

avoidance,

individu-

alism,

masculinity,

and

time

horizon.

Interpretivism

also can

become

convergent

when rich

descriptive

analyses are

condensed into

statements

of

worldview or

ethos as,

for



1996

Schultz

and Hatch

539

example,

when

Geertz

(1973)

claimed

the

cockfighting

ritual

expresses

what it is

to be Balinese.

However,

interpretive

studies

are

largely

founded

on

divergent

analytical

processes.

Proponents

of

divergent processes

expand

and enrich

the

analysis

by

constantly

seeking

more

interpre-

tations and

making

new

associations.

Divergence

occurs

as one

associa-

tion

provokes

others

in

a

series

of

interpretive

acts.

Knights

and

Willmott

(1995)

presented

an

example

of

divergent

analytical

processes

in

their

study

of

organizational

change

within

a British insurance

company

where

they

moved from

studying

a

management

ritual to

interpreting

the

context

of cultural control

in

which the

ritual was embedded.

Kreiner

and

Schultz

(1995) also moved from a

specific

cross-national,

European,

high-technol-

ogy

project

to examination

of the

larger

symbolic

and collaborative

context

of the project. Functionalists, too, become divergent when they generalize

their

findings

beyond

their

case

examples.

Hofstede

(1980),

for

instance,

generalized

his

findings

from one

multinational

company

to the rest

of

the

organizational world.

Thus,

the

divergence

within

functionalism

is

based on

arguments

of

generalization,

whereas

divergence

within

inter-

pretivism

relies on the

emergence of

associative

relations.

However,

we

argue

that

the

functionalist

paradigm

is

dominated

by

convergent

think-

ing,

which

contrasts with

interpretivist tendencies

toward

divergent

thinking.

Paradigm Connections

Statements

made

by

people who

are

associated

with

postmodernism

help

researchers

recognize

the

connections

between

functionalism

and

interpretivism.

Seen

from

a

postmodern

point of

view,

both of

these

para-

digms

are

modernist as

opposed to

postmodernist.

Thus,

functionalism

and

interpretivism

may

have

a

number of

modernist

characteristics

in

common, which so far

have

been

neglected within

both

paradigms.

Draw-

ing

on

a

number

of

distinct

contributions

from

postmodern

thinking,

we

describe

several

modernist

connections

between

functionalist and

inter-

pretive paradigms that will serve in developing our paradigm-crossing,

interplay

strategy.

Postmodernism

represents a

recent

development

within

organiza-

tional

theory

(e.g.,

Cooper &

Burrell,

1988;

Hassard &

Parker,

1993;

Linstead,

1993b) via

architecture,

philosophy,

linguistics,

semiotics, and

literary

criti-

cism.

Among

the

key

contributors to

postmodern

thinking are

Jean

Baudril-

lard, Pierre

Bourdieau,

Jacques

Derrida,

Michel

Foucault,

Frederick

Jameson, Charles

Jencks, and

Jean-Francois

Lyotard. We

consider

post-

modernism

a

critical

movement

rather

than a

consistent

theoretical

framework or

paradigm

in its

own

right.

Within

organization

theory, post-

modernism challenges and questions theoretical and

methodological as-

sumptions and

points

to

the

connections

between

prior

paradigms

that

postmodernists

label

modern

(Hassard &

Parker,

1993;

Linstead,

1993a;

Linstead

&

Grafton-Small,

1990). In

counterposition

to the

above

contrasts

between

functionalism

and

symbolism,

we

argue

that

postmodernism



540

Academy

of

Management

Review

April

points to

significant

connections

between these

two

paradigms

as

it

high-

lights

their

shared

modernist characteristics

(see

Table

2).

Culture as

pattern.

Derrida,

Foucault,

and

Lyotard

assumed

that

hu-

man

experience

is

fragmented

and discontinuous.

Thus,

they

searched

out

discontinuity

and difference rather

than order

and

similarity. Because

there is no

pattern

of sense

to

be

found, general

theories,

which

Lyotard

and

others

labeled

grand

narratives,

are sentimental

illusions.

Lyotard

(1984)

described the

attack on the

grand

narrative

as an

argument

against

the

modernist

drive

toward

determinacy

and

consensus,

whereas

modern-

ist notions of order and

patterning neglect

discontinuity,

passion,

and

rupture.

Similarly,

in

his

work on

deconstruction, Derrida's

(1978)key

con-

cepts

are

difference and

deconstruction,

where

voice is

given

to the

si-

lences and absences of organizational life, such as suppressed disorder

in the

orchestration

of

order

or

suppressed

idiosyncrasy

in

the

construction

of

meaning

(Derrida, 1978,

1980).

In

opposition

to

postmodern

views,

proponents

of both

functionalist

and

interpretive

paradigms

assert

that

studying

culture

depends

upon

recognizing patterns and

order. Both

assume that

culture

involves

an

ordering

of

social

relations

(Cooper

&

Burrell,

1988:

96),

where

stable

and

repetitive

patterns

of

values

or

meanings

are

displayed.

Thus,

both

functionalist and

interpretive

paradigms

frame

culture

as

underlying pat-

terns of

assumptions

or

meanings

in

the

organization

that

form

cultural

configurations. These

configurations

are, for

example,

perceived either

as

the

cultural

core or

as the

root

metaphor

(or

inherent

theme) of

the

culture.

Thus, users

of both

paradigms

assume

that

culture binds

the

organization

together

by

offering

a

cultural

pattern

that

guides

organizational

action.

Within

the

functionalist

paradigm,

Schein

(1991, 1992)

defined organi-

zational

culture as

a

pattern of basic

assumptions and

stated

that

cul-

ture

implies

patterning

(Schein, 1991:

246).

However,

cultural

patterns

do

TABLE

2

Connections Between Functionalism and Interpretivism

Connecting

Assumptions

Functionalism

Interpretivism

Culture as

Pattern

A

pattern of

values

or basic

A

worldview or webs

of

assumptions

significance

Culture

as

Essence

Discovering

the deep

level of

Interpreting the

symbolic

culture

makes it

possible

expressions

and

to

decipher

visible and

representations of

deep

espoused

levels

of

culture

layers of

meaning

Culture as

Static

Predictable,

linear,

Interrelated, circular

deterministic

stages of

relations

between

development

interpretations

and

meaning



1996

Schultz

and

Hatch

541

not

necessarily

imply

consistent

and

harmonious

relations;

inconsistent

or conflictful

patterns

also

may occur,

as Schultz

(1995)

demonstrated

in

her

study

of

a

Danish

ministry.

Whether

consistent, harmonious, inconsis-

tent,

or

conflictual,

the

pattern

of cultural

assumptions

and/or

values

con-

stitutes the cultural core

according

to the functionalist

paradigm.

This

core must be discovered

in order to

explain

relationships

between

culture

and

organizational

task

performance

or economic

efficiency (Denison,

1990;

Kotter &

Heskett, 1992).

Within

the

interpretivist

paradigm,

culture

often has been

referred

to

as

a

worldview or as webs of

significance

(Geertz,

1973; Smircich,

1985).

The

idea of

a worldview is that

patterns

of

meaning

weave

human

experience

together into a

coherent whole. This

coherence can be

illustrated with

the

idea of a root metaphor for the organization. A root metaphor offers a

distinctive and

fundamental

way

of

seeing,

thinking,

and

talking.

It

cap-

tures the

pattern

of a

well-established

type

of

experience

that

organizes

all

other

experiences

of

the

world with a

singular,

overpowering

symbol,

even

though

the

symbol

may

be

interpreted

multiplicitously

with

great

divergence

of

meaning.

Culture as

essence. The

ongoing

modernist search

for

essence and

deeper

meaning

in

superficial

arrangements

was

opposed

by

Foucault

(1977)

and

other

postmodern

theorists

(e.g.,

Baudrillard, 1988).

They claimed

that what lies at the surface of our culture or our awareness is the only

possible

phenomenon of

interest. In

his

description

of

Foucault's

contribu-

tion,

Burrell

(1988:

225) stated

that

postmodernism is

interested

in

the

superficial and

the

unexpected.

Reality does

not cover

up

some

hidden

underlying essence. It is

as it

appears.

This is

given

special

elaboration

by Foucault

in

the

distinction

between

archeology

and

genealogy.

Geneal-

ogy,

Burrell

explained,

records[]

the

singularity of

surface

events [by]

looking

at the

meaning

of

small

details,

minor

shifts

and subtle

contours.

There

are no

fixed

essences

or

underlying

laws

(1988: 229).

In

opposition

to the

postmodern

celebration

of

surface,

proponents of

both

functionalist

and

interpretive

paradigms

conduct

a

search

for the

underlying

assumptions or

meanings

believed

to

order

human

experience.

According to

both

functionalist

and

interpretive

paradigms,

culture is an

essence

upon

which

surface or

outer

manifestations

or

forms

are

based;

that

is,

discovering

the pattern

of

basic

assumptions

or

worldview

makes

it

possible to

decipher

the

content of

values and

artifacts

(functionalism)

or

to

understand

which

cultural

meanings

are

ascribed

to

cultural

expres-

sions

(interpretivism).

Hence,

similar to the

stability

of the

cultural

pattern

itself,

users of

both

paradigms

conceive of

culture as

a set

of

ordered

and

continuous relations between the visible and audible cultural representa-

tions

and

underlying

patterns of

assumptions

or

meanings.

According

to

both

paradigms, the

organizational

surface is

never

what it

seems to be

but is

always

hiding

a

cultural

essence,

located at

the

invisible

depths

of

the

organization.



542

Academy

of

Management

Review

April

Schein

explicitly

described

the

pattern

of basic

assumptions

as

the

deeper

levels

of culture

(1991:

252)

and further

emphasized

the

distinction

between

cultural surface

and essence

in

his

hierarchial three-level

model

of

assumptions,

values,

and artifacts.

Here,

the cultural

surface

is

ex-

plained

by the cultural

paradigm

and cannot

be

decoded

before the

under-

lying essence is revealed.

Schein

(1992:27)

put

it this

way:

the

culture

will

manifest itself at the levels of

observable

artifacts

and

shared

espoused

values,

norms, and

rules

of behavior

. . .

[but]

to

understand

a

group's

culture,

one

must

attempt

to

get

at its

shared

basic

assumptions.

Similarly, proponents

of

the

interpretive

paradigm

study

webs

of

meaning,

organized

in

terms

of

symbols

and

representations

(Smircich,

1985:

63).

According

to

this

paradigm,

webs of

meaning

lie

behind

the

immediate expressions of culture, turning the study of culture into a search

for

expressions

of

such cultural

essence. For

instance,

Gagliardi

(1990:

27)

claimed that

interpretivist

researchers

seek to

interpret

the

cultural

order

on

the basis

of

a

dominant

drive

(Benedict,

1934)

or

an

integrating

theme

(Barley,

1983;

Opler,

1945)

which can be

stored

in

synthesizing

symbols

(Geertz,

1973).

Culture

as static.

Cooper

and Burrell

(1988:

100)

claimed that

postmod-

ernism is

focused on

the

processual,

as

opposed

to

structural

character

of

human

institutions.

Instead

of

searching

for the

origin

of

things,

one

must

realize that

there is

disparity, difference

and

indeterminacy (Coo-

per

&

Burrell,

1988:

101).

The

temporary

and

fragile character

of

organiza-

tional

life

in

consumer

society

also has

been

stressed

by

Baudrillard,

who

claimed that

any

fixed

meaning

is now

replaced

by

a

network of

floating

signifiers

that offer

momentary seduction

rather

than

the

ability to

store

and

transmit

meaning

(Poster, 1988:

3).

In

opposition to

these

postmodern

views,

proponents of

both

function-

alist and

interpretive

paradigms offer

more

or

less static

representations

that ignore

the flux

and

discontinuity that

Baudrillard and

Derrida

(among

many

others)

suggested

constitute

ordinary life in

organizations.

Although

both functionalists and interpretivists acknowledge historical origins,

both

paradigms

represent

organizational

culture by

static

formulations

such

as

patterns,

maps,

programs,

metaphors,

images,

and

themes.

Seen

from the

postmodernist

view,

functionalist

analysis

results in

a

static model

linking elements

of

organizational

culture

together.

The

static

characteristics of

functionalist

analysis

make

it

possible to

compare vari-

ous

cultures and

to show

differencs

and

similarities

between

them.

Con-

sider,

for

instance,

Schein's

(1992)

empirical

analyses

in

which he

com-

pared

and

contrasted the

basic

assumptions of

two

different

organizations

and

Hofstede's

(1980)

comparison

among 50

national

cultures in

three

regions. Denison (1990) made a similar comparison among a number of

cases that

demonstrates the

relationship

between culture

and

effective-

ness.

In

order

to

make

such

comparisons, the

researcher

needs to

freeze

the

culture

by

representing

its

characteristics in a

static

way.

Some

func-

tionalist

researchers

acknowledge

group

development

and

learning



1996

Schultz

and Hatch

543

stages;

however,

we

argue

that

this

development

follows

predictable

and

deterministic

phases,

as,

for

example,

the

three-stage

cultural

life

cycle

(birth,

midlife,

maturity)

described

by

Schein

(1992). Thus, functionalist

analysis

results

in a static model

linking

elements

of

organizational

cul-

ture

together,

even when the focus

is

on

transformation

through

cultural

stages

of

development.

Interpretivists

express

a

strong

interest in

the

ongoing processes

of

sense

making

and

meaning

creation.

However,

interpretive researchers

rarely

explore

the

ruptures,

discontinuity,

and

fragmentation

of

sense

making (cf.

Clifford

&

Marcus, 1986;

Rosaldo,

1989,

within

anthropology).

Instead,

they

focus on the

interrelated

cyclic

processes

of

interpretation,

sense

making,

understanding,

and

action,

seeking

to

understand

the

con-

struction of culture (Czarniawska-Joerges, 1992; Hatch, 1993; Smircich &

Morgan,

1982;

Weick,

1979).

The

results

of

most

interpretive

analyses

are

case

studies

or

organizational

ethnographies

that

are at best

static

repre-

sentations of

dynamic

processes

(Clifford,

1986).

The

Move to

Interplay

We

claimed

that

postmodernism

clarifies

connections

between

func-

tionalism

and

interpretivism

by

imagining

them

to be

in

opposition

to

the

views

that

postmodernism offers.

When

postmodernism is

taken

up,

culture

becomes

fluid,

and no

fixed

pattern

can

be identified once and for

all; there

may be an

infinite

number

of

ways

that

culture

works,

depending

on

time,

place, and the

persons

involved.

From the

postmodern

perspec-

tive,

functionalism

and

interpretivism

appear to be

alike in

terms of

their

mutual

acknowledgement

of

culture as

pattern

and

essence,

and

their

static

formulation of

cultural

processes. On

this

basis,

we

have

established

connections

between

them,

arguing that when

both

contrasts

and

connec-

tions

are

considered

simultaneously,

paradigm

interplay

is

realized.

IMPLICATIONS OF

PARADIGM

INTERPLAY

Recognizing both

contrasts and

connections

between

functionalism

and

interpretivism

demands

that the

researcher

first shift

between

and

then

withdraw an

equal

distance

from

both

paradigms. We

proposed

adopting

postmodernism

as

a

means to

this

withdrawal,

and

we

argue

that

the

accomplishment of

our

project

(to

keep

both

contrasts

and

connec-

tions in

mind)

produces

a new

state of

awareness.

In

other

words,

simulta-

neously

acknowledging

both

contrasts

and

connections

between para-

digms

creates

intellectual

tension

that

many

researchers

will

equate

with

paradox but

that

we

argue

has

its own

unique

features.

As Quinn and Cameron stated (1988: 2): The key characteristic in

paradox is

the

simultaneous

presence of

contradictory,

even

mutually

exclusive

elements.

Thus,

the

literature on

paradox

employs

both-and

rather

than

either-or

thinking

(Quinn,

1988;

Quinn

&

Cameron,

1988;Wes-

tenholz,

1993).

Dualistic

thinking

has been

present in

the

social

sciences



544

Academy

of

Management Review

April

throughout their

histories,

as

Maybury-Lewis

(1989) demonstrated.

Whereas

Maybury-Lewis

sought

harmony

between dualistic

oppositions,

Barley and Kunda

(1992)

employed

either-or

thinking

in their

study of

historical

swings

between normative

versus rational

ideologies

of

control

in

organization studies.

Whereas

Barley

and Kunda focused

on how

one

element

of

the normative-rational

dualism dominates

the rhetoric

of

man-

agement

ideology

at a

given

point

in

its

history,

the

paradox

literature

focuses

on

dualism itself

by

invoking

both-and

thinking.

We

argue

that

interplay,

like

paradox,

involves both-and

thinking.

However,

in

the

paradox literature the

emphasis

has

been

on

contrasts

defined as simultaneous

oppositions (Poole

& Van de

Ven,

1989; Quinn

&

Cameron, 1988),

whereas the

interplay strategy

also

points

to

connections

as a noncontradictory foundation of interdependence between opposi-

tions. Authors

of

the

paradox

literature

also have

focused

on

accepting,

clarifying,

or

resolving paradoxes

(Poole

&

Van de

Ven,

1989;

Van de

Ven &

Poole, 1988),

whereas users of the

interplay

strategy insist on the

preservation

of tension. The

ability to

recognize

interdependence, while

maintaining

tension,

is

therefore the

distinguishing

feature of

interplay

in

relation to

paradox as it has been

treated

within

organization

theory.

Instead of

having to choose

between

paradigms

on

the

basis of their

commonly

accepted

contrasts,

proponents

of

the

interplay strategy follow

the

postmodern claim that in

order to

see the

ordinary

with a fresh

vision,

we have

to

make it

extraordinary; that

is, we

must break

the habits of

routine

thought and

see

the

world as

though for the

first

time (Cooper &

Burrell, 1988:

101).

We

claim that

recognition of

paradigm

interdependence

breaks

routine and

polarized

ways of

considering

paradigm

differences

by

pointing to

paradigm

connections.

Interplay 1:

Generality-Contextuality

Both

functionalists and

interpretivists

argue

that

culture can be con-

ceived

as an

ordered

pattern, whether

this

pattern is

predefined or emer-

gent. Because of this connection, we argue that it is possible to study

the

simultaneous

occurrence of

(a) culture as

generality,

inherent in a

TABLE

3

Implications of

Paradigm

Interplay

Interplay

1

Interplay 2

Interplay 3

Contrast:

Predefined

versus

Categorical versus

Convergent versus

emergent

associative

divergent

Connection:

Pattern

Essence

Static

Implication:

Generality

and

Clarity

and

Stability and

contextuality

ambiguity

instability



1996

Schultz

and Hatch

545

predefined

and

universal

framework and

(b)

culture

as

contextuality,

sug-

gested

by

the

emergent

construction

of

meaning.

Within

the

interplay

strategy,

culture is neither defined

in terms

of

generality

nor

contextuality;

instead,

we

argue

that culture researchers

must understand

and

describe

culture in both of these

ways.

Researchers often have used

generality

and

contextuality

as

opposing

tensions

in

the cultural

analysis

of

organizations

in that

each has

been

considered

separately

to

offer

guidelines

to culture

studies

(e.g., Smircich,

1983).

For

instance,

within

functionalist culture

studies,

the

pursuit

of

gen-

erality

has led to

descriptions

of values or

cultural

assumptions

that

are

shared

among

organizational

members

(e.g.,

Schein,

1985,

1992)

or to

mea-

sures such as

cultural

strength

that

allow

for

comparisons

across

organiza-

tions (e.g., Kilmann et al., 1985). In the search for shared characteristics,

researchers

frequently

discover

subcultures as

they

grapple

with

localized

meanings.

Rather then

switching

to a

contextual

orientation,

however,

their

preference

for

generality

has led to

conceptions

of

culture at

different

levels of

analysis

(e.g.,

overall

culture versus

subcultures

such as

hierar-

chy

or functional

subunits).

Thus,

functionalist

subculture

researchers fre-

quently question the

possibility

of

shared

meaning

at the

organization

level,

but

usually they

adapt

generality

to the

subunit level

rather

than

considering

contextuality.

Meanwhile,

interpretive

researchers have

emphasized

how

issues

like

time,

place,

situation,

participants,

and

agenda

combine

to

constitute

dif-

ferent

cultural

contexts

within

the

organization.

Researchers

who

are sen-

sitive to

contextuality

stress the

lack of a

general

frame of

reference

as

a

means

for

defining and

comparing

various

contexts.

Instead of

searching

for

an

overall, shared

culture,

interpretivists

focus on

the

ongoing

sense

making

that

takes

place within

specific local

contexts. For

example,

Kunda

(1992)

described

how the

same

group of

people uses

different

constructions

of

meaning within

formal

training

sessions

and

time-out

situations. A

contextual

approach

is

also

suggested

in

the

study of

occupational

com-

munities (e.g., Trice, 1993; Trice & Beyer, 1993; Van Maanen, 1991; Van

Maanen

&

Barley,

1984),

in

which

meaning

that

originates

outside

the

organization

contextualizes

meaning

within

the

organization.

The

interplay

strategy

simultaneously

emphasizes

both

generality

and

contextuality.

The

interdependence

assumed to

exist

between

them

implies that

researchers

need to

conceive

generality and

contextuality in

terms

of

one

another

in

order

to

analyze

organizational

culture. In

her

study

of

a

public

ministry,

Schultz

(1991)

provided an

example

of the

simul-

taneous

use of

generality and

contextuality in

the

study

of an

organiza-

tional

culture.

Schultz's

study

described the

use of

different

cultural

con-

texts defined by the interpretation and enactment of the relationship

between

managers

and

their

Minister.

These

contexts

differed in

time,

place,

and

situation.

Schultz

labeled

these

contexts

symbolic

domains

and

said

that

they

consist of

a

distinct

set of

social

definitions

and

meanings,

which

characterize

particular

work

settings

(1991:

489).

The

contexts

be-



546

Academy

of

Management

Review

April

came

apparent

when

the

managers

made

a transition between

one

context

and

another, for

example,

when

they

moved

from

hallway

discussions

to

ritualized

meetings.

Changes

in

demeanor,

behavior,

and

speech practices

indicated differences

in

the

symbolic

domains that

Schultz

described

in

metaphorical

terms,

such as the mundane

monastery,

the fire

station,

and the

sage

and

the

servants. The

metaphors

served

to

summarize

the

variety

of

contexts that the

managers

perceived

themselves

to

move

between. Schultz

concluded that the

managers

work within

different .

. .

symbolic

domains . .

.

[and

they]

must be

able to

keep

all

symbolic

do-

mains in

mind and switch back and

forth between

them

(1991:

503).

In

her

study,

Schultz focused on

contextuality

and

the

ways

in

which

managers

switched from one

context to

another,

but

the data

also

point

to generality. That is, the ability to recognize different contexts depended

upon

acknowledging

the

special

relationship

that

occurred between

Min-

isters

(roughly

similar to

U.S.

Cabinet

members,

such as

the

Secretary

of

State)

and their

managers

as

the

defining

characteristic

of the

overall

organizational culture. This

special

relationship

was

illustrated

by

the

number of

times

tasks,

events,

situations,

and

opportunities were

defined

in

relation to

the

wishes of the

Minister. Once

this

general

relationship

was

found,

it

became

possible to

understand each

context

in

terms of

distance,

spontaneous

interaction, and

ritualized

interaction

between

the

Minister

and the

managers.

According

to

interplay

strategy,

this

ongoing

tension

between

generality and

contextuality

implies

that

they are

defined

in

terms of

one

another.

This

interdependence can

be

explained in

two

ways.

First,

contextuality

can

be

recognized

only from

a

position of

general-

ity.

Recognizing that the

special

relationship

between

the

managers and

the

Minister

was

at the

heart of

the

culture

enabled

Schultz to

distinguish

between

the

multiple

contexts of the

culture.

Instead of

looking for

contexts

constituted

by

different

groups

of

employees

(i.e.,

economists

versus

law-

yers)

or

different

types of

relationships

between

managers and

employees

(i.e., paternalistic versus collegial), Schultz's awareness of the general

focus on

the

Minister

enabled

her

to

recognize

variations

in this

relation-

ship

based in

different

situations

confronted by

the

managers (e.g.,

ritual-

ized

joint

meetings

versus

spontaneous

face-to-face

talks).

When

she

worked from

a

position of

contextuality,

Schultz

began

to

appreciate

gener-

ality.

Her

ability

to

clearly

describe

the

three

symbolic

domains

(monas-

tery, fire

station,

and

sage/servant)

depended

upon

Schultz's

recognition

of the

special

relationship

between

Minister

and

managers. In

this

way,

the

researcher

discovered

how

cultural

generality

was

established

and

maintained

without

sacrificing

appreciation for

local

contexts of

meaning.

Interplay

2:

Clarity-Ambiguity

Both

functionalists

and

interpretivists

argue that

surface

manifesta-

tions

express or

represent

deeper

cultural

essence,

regardless of

whether

this

essence is

discovered

by a

categorical

route or an

associative route.



1996

Schultz

and Hatch

547

Because

of this

connection,

we

argue

that

it is

possible

to

study

the

simulta-

neous existence

of

clarity,

as

emphasized

by

categorical

analysis,

and

ambiguity,

which

is inherent in associative thinking (Cohen, 1985;Meyer-

son,

1991).

Because the

categorical

mode forces researchers

to

locate

cul-

tural

phenomena

in

one

category

or

another,

this mode

depends

upon

clear

distinctions.

The associative

mode,

in

contrast,

provides

a

mechanism

to

elude

distinctions,

thus

pushing

researchers

to

recognize

the

multiple

ways

in

which

symbols

may

be

used,

which

constitutes

ambiguity.

In

our

view, neither

clarity

nor

ambiguity

can

be

defined

as the essence

of

culture;

rather,

culture researchers need to understand

and

describe culture

in

both of these terms.

Interplay

between the two

paradigms

encourages

both

categorical

and

associative

thinking and,

thus, places

the

researcher

in the position of accepting both clarity and ambiguity.

In

culture

studies, the difference

between

clarity

and

ambiguity

has

been

addressed

as a

key

distinction

among

the

integration,

differentiation,

and

fragmentation

perspectives

(Martin

1992;

Martin &

Meyerson,

1988;

Meyerson

&

Martin,

1987).

According

to Martin

and

Meyerson

(1988),

the

integration

perspective denies

ambiguity,

the

differentiation

perspective

channels

ambiguity,

and

only

the

fragmentation

perspective

acknowl-

edges

ambiguity.

Similarly,

functionalist

researchers

have

focused

on

clarifying consistent

patterns

of

culture,

whereas

interpretive

researchers

have

emphasized the

multiplicity

of

meanings

that are

associated with

worldviews. This is

illustrated

by

functionalist

definitions

of

culture, such

as

Schein's

(1991:

248)

claim that if

things

are

ambiguous,

then, by

defini-

tion,

that

group

does

not

have

a

culture.

Meanwhile,

interpretive

research-

ers

have

made

a

strong

case

for

including

ambiguity

in

the

concept of

culture. For

instance, Frost

and his

colleagues

acknowledged

that the

consistent

patterns of

culture

emphasized by

the

functionalists

leave

no

room for

ambiguity

(Frost,

Moore,

Louis,

Lundberg,

&

Martin,

1991: 8),

whereas

Meyerson

(1991:

255)

accused

functionalists'

studies

of

ignoring

that

which

is

unclear,

unstable, and

'disorderly' (that

which is

more frag-

mented, intractable, and difficult to control). Eisenberg (1984)argued that

although

clarity is a

preferred

objective

among

researchers

and prac-

titioners of

organizational

communication,

ambiguity

can

be an

effective

communication

strategy.

Hatch

and

Ehrlich

(1993),

in

a

study of

managerial

discourse

conducted

over

an

18-month

period,

used both

clarity

and

ambiguity in

their study

of an

organizational

culture.

Their

focus

on

ambiguity

revealed that

at

one

point

in

time

the

managers

categorized

items

as

solutions

to the

problem of

securing

their

facility

against

theft

(e.g.,

posted

guards

at

entrances,

implemented

a

card-access

system),

whereas at a

later

time

they

categorized the

same

items as

problems

(e.g., the

guards

were surly,

the

card-access

system

made

employees

resentful

and

punished them

for

working

late,

Hatch &

Ehrlich,

1993:

515).

These

researchers

observed:

It

seems

that

there are

no

final

solutions

to

security

problems.

Rather,

the

way

the

security

issue was

discussed is

more

suggestive of a

stream



548

Academy

of

Management

Review

April

of

solutions

that become

problems

demanding

other

solutions,

which

then

create other

problems.

They

concluded that the

instability

between

the

categories

of

problem

and solution

is . . . an

expression

of

ambiguity.

In their

study,

Hatch and Ehrlich

(1993) pointed

to

the

ambiguity of

problem/solutions

thinking,

but the

concept

of

clarity

is also needed to

analyze

the

data. That

is,

at each

particular moment,

the

managers

knew

with clarity

whether to

categorize something

as a

problem

or

a

solution,

but

when a longitudinal

perspective

was

taken,

much of what the

managers

categorized

with

confidence as solutions

later seemed to

them,

with

equal

clarity,

to be

problems.

The characteristics of these elements

of the

security

issue thus

appear

to be

in

flux.

We believe that this

example

illustrates

the

ongoing

tension

between

clarity

and

ambiguity

that lies

at

the

heart

of the interplay strategy.

When researchers use the

interplay

strategy,

this tension

takes the

form of

interdependence

between

clarity

and

ambiguity.

This

interdepen-

dence can be described

in

two

ways. First,

ambiguity

can be

recognized

only

from a

position

of

clarity.

When Hatch and Ehrlich

noticed,

for exam-

ple,

that

security guards

shifted their status from

solutions to

problems

(and

finally

back to

solutions

again), they finally recognized

the

ambiguity

of

problem/solutions

thinking.

That

is,

because

the

guards

were

catego-

rized

by

the

managers

in

an

unambiguous

way

at

specific

times as

either

solutions

or

problems,

and

because of the

association between

guards

in

both instances

(i.e.,

they

were the same

guards),

ambiguity about the

status

of

the

guards

was

inferred

from

parallel

experiences

of

clarity

about them.

Second,

clarity

can be

recognized

only

from a

position of

ambiguity.

Rather than

perceiving the shift between

problems and

solutions as confu-

sion

and disorder

(Meyerson, 1991),the

study by Hatch and

Ehrlich shows

that

clarity

is

achieved

in

moments;

it is not a

permanent condition (i.e.,

each

solution and

problem

is

clearly defined in

the moment).

Finding the

ambiguity

in

redefinitions of

solutions as

problems

permitted the

research-

ers to discover how long clarity lasted; it also raises questions about how

ambiguity

is

created,

maintained,

and changed.

Interplay

3:

Stability-Instability

Both

functionalism

and

interpretivism produce

static views

of organi-

zational

culture, regardless of

whether the analytical

processes

that pro-

duce

these views

are

convergent or

divergent.

Although both

paradigms

produce

static

representations of

organizational

culture, we claim that the

interplay between them

makes it possible

for researchers to

study culture

as

both

stability and

instability.

Convergent

processes focus the re-

searcher on finding singular points of view that result in stable

representa-

tions of

organizational culture.

Divergent

processes, in

contrast, encourage

the

researcher to

keep generating

additional points of

view, a

process that

undermines the

stability of earlier

representations. As a result,

convergent

processes render a

stable

appreciation of culture,

whereas divergent pro-



1996

Schultz

and Hatch

549

cesses reveal

instability (which

is then described

in

a

static

way).

We

believe

that neither

stability

nor

instability

alone

adequately

describes

culture;

both

terms

are

needed.

Stability

has been

widely

emphasized

in functionalist

culture

studies

and

is

often

claimed

to be intrinsic to the definition

of culture itself.

Schein

(1991: 245), for

instance,

stated

flatly

that culture

implies

stability.

Also,

according

to Hofstede's

(1995)

definition

of culture

as mental

programming,

culture

is conceived

of

stable

patterns

that have established

themselves

within a

person's

mind

(Hofstede,

1991:

4).

Although

early

interpretive

researchers

did

not stress

instability

or

fluctuation

in

culture

research,

more

recent work

on

organizational

culture

points

in

this direction

(Gagli-

ardi, 1986;

Hatch,

1993;

Knights

&

Willmott,

1995;

Kreiner

&

Schultz,

1995;

Martin, 1992;Meyerson & Martin, 1987).

In

a

longitudinal

study

of

organizational

change

in

a

British

insurance

company,

Knights

and

Willmott

(1995) provided

an

example

of the

simulta-

neous use of

stability

and

instability

to

study

an

organizational

culture.

These authors

described how

senior

management

sought

to

replace

a

paternalistic,

consensus-oriented

philosophy

of

management

with a

cul-

ture that

emphasized 'commercial'

and

professional

criteria

for

.

. .

corpo-

rate

performance

(Knights &

Willmott, 1995:

30). Within

this

change

pro-

cess,

the

researchers,

on the

one

hand,

found

stability

in

the

way

top

management

imposed

planning systems

and

change

rituals

onto the

orga-

nizational

members,

especially middle

managers.

Although

top

manage-

ment

claimed

to

shift from

classic

strategic

management to

professional

teams, the

researchers

emphasized

that

they

communicated

and

enacted

these

new

times in

ways

similar

to the

paternalistic

past

(e.g., at

seminars,

in

vision

statements, in

new

evaluation

procedures, in

new

products).

On the

other

hand,

the

study also

showed

instability in

the

ways

senior

managers

interpreted

and

responded

to

the group

of

middle

manag-

ers

during

the

change

process.

Senior

management's

perception of

middle

management

shifted

radically from

an

engineering

attitude,

where they

treated middle management as neutral, technical units (Knights &Will-

mott,

1995:

42); to an

attitude of

shock

and

anger, as

middle

managers

resisted their

efforts;

and

further

to

symbolic

manipulation, as

the

pater-

nalistic

tradition

was

redefined

instead

of

replaced.

These

researchers

concluded

that

instead of

seeking to

understand

and

work

with the

culture

of

the

organization

as

they

found it,

senior

management

pursued a

'scorched

earth'

policy in

which

every

opportunity

was taken

to

expose

its

failings

and,

by

implication,

the

inadequacy of

those

constituted

within

it

(Knights

&

Willmott,

1995: 44).

Knights and

Willmott's

analysis of

the

organizational

processes

con-

tained elements of both stability and

instability,

although they

did not

address

the

interdependence

between

them.

However, we

argue that

the

ability

to

recognize the

stable

form of the

change

process

depends

upon

the

instability of

the

interaction

between

senior and

middle

management

(e.g., the shift

from

engineering

attitude

to

symbolic

manipulation).

Once



550

Academy

of

Management

Review

April

this

instability is

acknowledged, it

becomes

possible

for

researchers

to

understand the

stability

of senior

management's

control

despite

proclama-

tions

about

professional teams

and new

ways

of

collaborating. Thus, the

interplay

strategy

reveals

interdependent

tension between

stability

and

instability,

which

can be described

in

two

ways.

First,

instability

can be

recognized

only

from

a

position

of

stability.

Knights and Willmott's

(1995)

description

of the

stability

of the

company's

management practices

made

it

possible

for the

researchers to see

the

major shifts toward new times. The

instability

in

the

various

ways

that

these times were

interpreted

and enacted

occurred

at

different

moments

and

among

different

people

(e.g.,

the conflicts

among

senior

management,

middle

management,

and

employees).

Second,

it

was

possible

to

find

stability only from a position of instability. The awareness of senior man-

agement's

fluctuating

rhetoric and

discontinuous

ways

of

addressing

mid-

dle

management enabled

the

researchers to

recognize

that

senior

manage-

ment's

control was

orchestrated and

enacted

in

stable

ways

inherent in

top-down

strategic

planning.

Instead

of

being

shaken

by

middle

manage-

ment's

resistance and

obstruction,

Knights

and

Willmott

(1995) pointed

to

how

senior

management reconstructed and

maintained the

stability

of

management

control,

even when

it

introduced

change

within

the

organi-

zation.

Interplay and Paradigm Crossing

We

applied the

interplay

strategy

to

demonstrate how

the

simultane-

ous

recognition

of

contrasts

and

connections

between

functionalist

and

interpretive

paradigms

implies an

understanding of

organizational

cul-

ture

in

terms

of


clarity/ambiguity,

and

stability/

instability. The

application

of

the

interplay

strategy to

culture

studies

involved the

following two

steps: (a)

recognition

of the

contrasts

and con-

nections

between

functionalist

and

interpretive

paradigms

(e.g., Figure

3)

and

(b) generation

and

application of

interdependence

and

tension

be-

tween the contrasts and connections through movement between the para-

digms.

The

interplay

strategy does not fix

itself

in

one

or another

para-

digm;

rather it

allows

the

argument to flow

between

them.

We

consider

this

use

of

interplay to

be a key

contribution

to

research-

ers who

are faced

with

multiple

paradigms

and

who value

the

diversity

of

these

paradigms. Of

course,

if

at some

point

paradigm

differences are

not

relevant,

the

interplay

strategy

will no

longer be

useful.

However,

we

believe

that

multiparadigm

thinking is both

likely

and

desirable, in

light of

predictions

about

diversity in

postindustrial

society.

Because the

interplay

strategy

takes

advantage

of

the

diversity

offered by

organizational

studies,

it matches the

diversity

experienced (or

constructed) by

members of its

primary

audiences.

We

believe

the

paradigm

interplay, and the

paradigm-crossing

posi-

tion it

takes,

are

superior

to

both

incommensurability

and

integration

for

defining

the

relations

between

paradigms. If

theorists

stay

within

para-



1996

Schultz

and Hatch

551

digm

incommensurability,

this leads

to

ongoing

paradigm

wars,

and

an

integrationist

position

would result

in

absolute

dominance

by

one

para-

digm.

For

example,

Martin

and Frost

(In press)

describe

paradigm wars

as the

ongoing

struggle

for dominance

they perceive

taking place within

the

organizational

culture

field,

whereas

Smircich

and

Calks

(1987)

claimed that dominance

by

the

functionalist

paradigm

has

already

taken

place

in

organizational

culture studies. The

interplay

strategy

offers

an

alternative to both

paradigm

wars and

hegemony

that celebrates

diversity

and provides orientation within a

complex

and

often

contradictory

body

of

knowledge.

We wish

to

emphasize that the

interplay

strategy

should not be

limited

to

applications

within

culture studies. The

contrasts and

connections

be-

tween functionalism and interpretivism also can be applied to other do-

mains within

organization

theory,

particularly

new

institutional

theory

and

studies of

organizational

identity,

learning,

and

cognition.

In

new

institutional

theory,

for

instance,

the

interplay

strategy might

be

applied

to

contrasts

and connections

between

applications

of

institutional

economics

(e.g.,

Williamson,

1975,

1985)

and

the

sociological

approach

(e.g.,

Dobbin,

1994;

Meyer

&

Rowan,

1977;

Selznick, 1949).

Similarly,

in

studies of

organiza-

tional

cognition,

the

interplay

strategy

could

clarify

contrasts

and

connec-

tions

between

mappers

(e.g.,

Huff,

1990)

and

interpreters

(e.g.,

Sims

&

Gioia,

1986).

By

applying the

interplay

strategy to

contrasts and

connections

associated

with

these

domains,

researchers

can

develop additional

paths

to

cross

between

functionalist

and

interpretive

paradigms

without

forsak-

ing the

orienting

qualities these

paradigms offer.

We also

claim

that

postmodernism

poses

critical

questions

that can

help

to

locate

connections

between

other

paradigms

than

functionalism

and

interpretivism. For

instance,

Burrell

and

Morgan

(1979)

described

the

boundary

between

functionalism

and

radical

structuralism in

terms

of a

shared

notion of

determinism. In

framing

his

critique

of

grand

narrative,

Lyotard

(1984)

argued

that the

use of

determinism in

the

prediction

of

history (e.g., Marx's historical materialism) is a modernist legitimating

device

rather

than a

scientific

explanation, an

argument that

could

also

be

applied,

for

instance, to

the use

of

determinism

in

behavioralist

theories

within

the

functionalist

paradigm

(e.g.,

Skinner, 1953).

A

study

of the

uses

of

determinism

represents

one

possibility

for

conducting

interplay

with

respect to

functionalism

and

radical

structuralism.

Some

readings of

postmodernism

suggest

that

distinctions,

such

as

those

between

paradigms,

should be

abandoned. We

believe

that

the

history

of

these

distinctions

within the

organizational

field

provides

neces-

sary

orientation

for

positioning

contemporary

thought

in

relation to

the

ongoing discourse and allows redefinitions

and

reconstructions

of

prior

arguments.

We

have

applied

postmodernism

to the

paradigm

debate by

identifying

important but

often

overlooked

connections

between

two para-

digms.

However, we

have

stayed

within a

modernist

framework,

because

interplay

serves to

question

well-established

paradigm

borders

rather



552

Academy

of

Management

Review

April

than

to question the usefulness

of

the

paradigm

construct

itself.

Rather

than

focusing

on

the

deconstructive

aspects

of

postmodernism,

we

have

emphasized

postmodernism's

ability

to break the habits

of

organized

routine and see the

world as

though

for the first

time

(Cooper

&

Burrell,

1988: 101).

Thus,

there

is some

irony

in our

position;

the view we

develop

using postmodernism

can itself

be laid

open

to

postmodern

critique.

We

accept

this

irony

as

another

case of

productive

tension and

an

illustration

of

interplay

at another

level.

CONCLUSION

In

this article, we

present

a

new

strategy

for

crossing

paradigms

that

was developed in terms of functionalism and interpretivism within the

domain

of

organizational

culture studies.

The

strategy-called

inter-

play-was

built on

simultaneous

appreciation

for

both the

contrasts and

the connections

between

two

paradigms.

We

argued

that

connections

between functionalist and

interpretive

paradigms

appear

when

research-

ers consider

postmodern

critiques.

These

critiques

show that

both

para-

digms focus on

pattern

and

essence and

involve

static

representations

of

culture.

We

claim that the

connections

are a

contribution of

this

study

as

is

our use of

postmodern

theory

to

inspire

interplay

between

these

para-

digms.

Based on the contrasts and connections we

identify

in

our

analysis

of

functionalism

and

interpretivism,

the

following

three

implications

of

interplay

were

identified:


clarity/ambiguity,

and

stability/instability.

According

to the

interplay

strategy,

instead of

treating

these as

paradoxes

and

attempting

to

resolve

them, recognition of

their

interdependence enables

the

researcher to

maintain their

tensions and

thereby

reach

a more

subtle

and

complex

appreciation of

organiza-

tional culture.

The

interplay

strategy

involved two

steps:

(a)

empirical

recognition

of contrasts and connections and (b) examination of the implications of

recognizing both

contrasts

and

connections

by

moving

between the

two

paradigms.

Interplay

helps researchers

recognize that

oppositions

are

always defined

in

terms

of

one

another

(a point

made in the

structuralist

semantic

context

by

Saussure, 1959,

and

Greimas,

1966, among

others).

More

important,

interplay

maintains

the tension

between

contrasts and

connections

that

permits a

more

sophisticated

approach to the

analysis

and

interpretation

of

empirical

data, as we

illustrated with

three

cases.

Our

interplay

strategy

transforms

the

paradigm

debate

from war

be-

tween a

limited number

of

major

players

(e.g., the

four

grand

paradigms

of Burrell & Morgan, 1979) into a much more fluid or nomadic situation,

where a

shifting number

of

positions

and

researchers

interact,

depending

upon

the

domain

studied.

We

believe

that it is

impossible and

illusionary

to settle

the

paradigm issue

once

and for all (a

desire

that is

still

expressed

in

the

ongoing

debate (e.g.,

Jackson & Carter,

1993,

versus

Willmott,

1990,



1996 Schultz and Hatch

553

1993a,b; Pfeffer, 1993, versus Van Maanen,

1995; Weaver & Gioia, 1994,

versus De Cock & Rickards, 1995),

but it is

equally

naive to think

organiza-

tion

theorists are

ready

to

transcend

the need for

paradigms completely.

Rather, researchers

need

paradigms (or

some other orienting device) in

order

to

maintain

and make use of the

diversity

that

characterizes

the

field of organization studies.

If

they accept the

multiparadigm diversity,

the

interplay strategy

offers a means to take

advantage of the tensions

between paradigms and thereby generate new forms of understanding.

REFERENCES

Alvesson, M., &

Berg,

P.

0. 1992.

Corporate

culture

and

organizational

symbolism.

Berlin:

Walter de

Gruyter.

Barley,

S.

R. 1983.

Semiotics

and the

study

of

occupational

and

organizational

cultures.

Administrative Science

Quarterly,

28:

393-413.

Barley,

S.

R.,

&

Kunda,

G.

1992.

Design

and

devotion:

Surges

of

rational and

normative

ideologies

of control

in

managerial

discourse. Administrative

Science

Quarterly,

37:

363-399.

Barthes,

R. 1972.

Mythologies (A.

Lavers,

trans.).

New York: Hill

&

Wang.

Baudrillard,

J.

1988.

Selected

writings.

Stanford,

CA:

Stanford

University

Press.

Benedict, R.

1934. Patterns of

culture. Boston:

Houghton-Mifflin.

Berger, P., & Luckmann. 1966.

The social

construction of

reality.

Middlesex, England: Penguin.

Burrell, G.

1988.

Modernism,

postmodernism

and

organizational

analysis

2:

The

contribution

of

Michel

Foucault.

Organization

Studies,

9:

221-237.

Burrell, G., &

Morgan,

G. 1979.

Sociological

paradigms

and

organizational

analysis. Lon-

don:

Heinemann.

Calds, M., &

Smircich,

L.

1991.

Voicing

seduction to

silence

leadership. Organization

Studies,

12:

567-602.

Clifford,

J.

1986.

Introduction:

Partial

truths. In

J.

Clifford

&

G.

E.

Marcus

(Eds.),

Writing

culture.

The

poetics and

politics of

ethnography: 1-26.

Berkeley:

University of

California

Press.

Clifford,

J.,

&

Marcus,

G. E.

(Eds.).

1986.

Writing culture. The

poetics and

politics of

ethnography.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cohen,

A. P.

1985. The

symbolic

construction

of

community.

London:

Tavistock.

Cooper,

R.,

&

Burrell,

G.

1988.

Modernism,

postmodernism

and

organizational

analysis: An

introduction.

Organization

Studies, 9:

91-113.

Czarniawska-Joerges,

B.

1992.

Exploring

complex

organizations.

Newbury

Park,

CA:

Sage.

Czarniawska-Joerges,

B.,

&

Joerges,

B.

1990.

Linguistic

artifact

at

service of

organizational

control. In P.

Gagliardi

(Ed.),

Symbols

and

artifacts:

Views

of

the

corporate

landscape:

339-364.

Berlin:

Walter

de

Gruyter.

Deal,

T.

E., &

Kennedy, A. A.

1982.

Corporate

cultures.

Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

De Cock, C., & Rickards, T. 1995. Of Giddens, paradigms, and philosophical garb. Organiza-

tion

Studies, 16:

699-704.

Denison, D.

1990.

Corporate

culture and

organizational

effectiveness.

New

York:

Wiley.

Derrida,

J.

1978.

Writing and

difference.

London:

Routledge

&

Kegan Paul.

Derrida,

J.

1980. Of

grammatology.

Baltimore: John

Hopkins

University

Press.



554 Academy of Management Review April

Dobbin, F.

R.

1994.

Forging

industrial

policy:

The United

States,

Britain

and France in

the

railway age. New York:

Cambridge

University

Press.

Durkheim, E.

1949. Division of

labor

in

society.

Glencoe,

IL:Free Press.

(Original

was

published

in 1893)

Eisenberg,

E.

1984.

Ambiguity

as

strategy

in

organizational

communication.

Communication

Monographs,

51:

227-242.

Feldman,

M.

1991. The

meanings

of

ambiguity:

Learning

from

stories and

metaphors.

In

P.

Frost,

L.

Moore,

M.

R.

Louis,

C.

Lundberg,

&

J.

Martin,

(Eds.),

Reframing

organizational

culture:

145-156.

Newbury

Park,

CA:

Sage.

Foucault,

M.

1977. The

archaeology

of

knowledge.

London:

Tavistock.

Frost, P.,

Moore, L., Louis, M.

R.,

Lundberg,

C., &

Martin,

J.

(Eds.).

1991.

Reframing organizational

culture.

Newbury

Park,

CA:

Sage.

Gagliardi, P. 1986. The creation and change of organizational culture. Organization Studies,

7: 117-134.

Gagliardi,

P.

(Ed.).

1990.

Symbols

and

artifacts: Views of

the

corporate

landscape.

Berlin:

Walter de

Gruyter.

Garfinkel,

H.

1967. Studies

in

ethnomethodology.

Englewood

Cliffs,

NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Geertz,

C.

1973. The

interpretation

of culture. New

York: Basic

Books.

Giddens,

A.

1976. New

rules of

sociological

method:

A

positive

critique

of

interpretative

sociologies.

New York: Basic

Books.

Giddens,

A.

1979. Central

problems

in

social

theory.

Berkeley:

University

of

California Press.

Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of

Management Review,

15:

584-602.

Gioia,

D., Donellon,

A.,

&

Sims,

H.

1989.

Communication and

cognition

in

appraisal: A

tale

of two

paradigms.

Organization

Studies,

10:

503-529.

Greimas,

A.

1966.

Semantique

structurale. Paris:

Larousse.

Hassard,

J.

1988.

Overcoming hermeticism in

organization

theory: An

alternative to

paradigm

incommensurability.

Human

Relations,

41: 247-259.

Hassard,

J.

1991.

Multiple

paradigms

and

organizational

analysis: A

case study.

Organization

Studies,

12:

275-299.

Hassard,

J.,

&

Parker, M.

1993

(Eds.).

Postmodernism

and

organizations.

London: Sage.

Hatch, M.

J.

1993. The

dynamics

of

organization

culture. Academy

of

Management

Review,

18: 657-693.

Hatch,

M.

J.,

&

Ehrlich, S. 1993.

Spontaneous humor

as an

indicator of

paradox

and ambiguity,

Organization

Studies, 14:

505-527.

Hopfl,

H.

1995.

Counterfeit

of emotion:

The

professionalization of

contempt.

Studies in

Culture,

Organization and

Societies,

1:

47-63.

Hofstede, G.

1980.

Culture's

consequences.

Beverly

Hills, CA:

Sage.

Hofstede, G. 1991.

Culture

and

organization:

Software of the

mind.

Intercultural

cooperation

and

its

importance for

survival.

New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. 1988. The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic

growth.

Organizational

Dynamics,

16(spring):

5-21.

Huff,

A.

S.

(Ed.).

1990.

Mapping

strategic

thought.

Chichester,

England:

Wiley.

Jackson,

N.,

&

Carter,

P.

1991. In

defense of

paradigm

incommensurability.

Organization

Studies,

12:

109-128.



1996 Schultz and

Hatch

555

Jackson,

N.,

&

Carter,

P.

1993.

Paradigm

wars :

A

response

to

Hugh

Willmott.

Organization

Studies,

14:

721-727.

Kilduff,

M. 1993.

Deconstructing

organizations.

Academy

of

Management

Review,

18:

13-32.

Kilmann, R.,

Saxton,

M.

J.,

Serpa,

R.,

&

Associates

(Eds.).

1985.

Gaining

control of

the

corporate

culture. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Knights,

D., &

Willmott,

H.

1995. Culture and

control

in

a life

insurance

company.

Studies

in

Culture,

Organization and

Societies,

1:

29-47.

Kreiner,

K.,

&

Schultz,

M.

1995. Soft

cultures:

The

symbolism

of

cross-border

organizing.

Studies

in

Culture,

Organization

and

Societies,

1:

63-83.

Kotter,

J.

P., &

Heskett,

J.

L.

1992.

Corporate

culture and

performance.

New York:

Free

Press.

Kuhn, T.

1970. The

structure of

scientific

revolutions

(2nd

ed.).

Chicago:

University

of

Chi-

cago

Press.

Kunda, G. 1992. Engineering culture: Control and commitment in

a

high-tech

corporation.

Philadelphia:

Temple

University

Press.

Lakoff,

G.,

&

Johnson,

M.

1980.

Metaphors

we

live

by.

Chicago:

University

of

Chicago

Press.

Larsen,

J., &

Schultz,

M.

1990.

Artifacts

in

a

bureaucratic

monastery.

In

P.

Gagliardi

(Eds.),

Symbols

and

artifacts:

Views of the

corporate

landscape:

281-302.

Berlin:

Walter

de

Gruyter.

Lee, A.

S. 1991.

Integrating positivist and

interpretive

approaches

to

organizational

research.

Organization

Science,

2:

342-365.

Linstead,

S. 1993a.

Deconstruction in

the

study

of

organizations.

In

J.

Hassard

&

M.

Parker

(Eds.),

Postmodernism

and

organizations:

49-70.

London:

Sage.

Linstead,

S.

1993b. From

postmodern

anthropology to

deconstructive

ethnography.

Human

Relations,

46:

97-119.

Linstead,

S., &

Graf

ton-Small, R.

1990.

Organizational

bricolage. In

B.

Turner

(Ed.),

Organiza-

tional

symbolism:

291-310. Berlin:

Walter

de

Gruyter.

Lyotard,

J.-F.

1984.

The

postmodern

condition: A

report

on

knowledge.

St

Paul:

University of

Minnesota Press.

Martin,

J.

1990.

Deconstructing

organizational

taboos: The

suppression of

gender

conflicts

in

organizations.

Organization

Science, 1:

339-359.

Martin,

J.

1992.

Cultures in

organization.

Oxford,

England:

Oxford

University

Press.

Martin,

J.,

&

Frost, P.

(In

press).

The

organizational

culture

war

games: A

struggle for

intellec-

tual

dominance. In

S.

Clegg,

C.

Hardy,

& W.

Nord

(Eds.),

Handbook

of

organization

studies.

London:

Sage.

Martin,

J.,

&

Meyerson, D.

1988.

Organizational

cultures

and

the

denial,

channeling

and

acknowledgement of

ambiguity.

In

L.

R.

Pondy, R.

J.

Boland, & H.

Thomas

(Eds.),

Managing

ambiguity

and

change:

93-126.

New

York:

Wiley.

Maybury-Lewis,

D.

1989. The

quest

for

harmony. In

D.

Maybury-Lewis

&

U.

Almagor

(Eds.),

The

attraction

of

opposites:

Thought

and

society

in a

dualistic

mode:

1-18. Ann

Arbor:

University

of

Michigan

Press.

Merton,

R.

1957.

Social

theory

and

social

structure

(2nd

ed.).

Glencoe,

IL:

Free

Press.

Meyer,

J.,

&

Rowan, B.

1977.

Institutionalized

organizations:

Formal

structure

as

myth

and

ceremony.

American

Journal

of

Sociology, 83:

340-363.

Meyerson,

D.

1991.

Acknowledging

and

uncovering

ambiguities

in

cultures.

In

P.

Frost,

L.

Moore, M.

R.

Louis,

C.

Lundberg,

&

J.

Martin

(Eds.),

Reframing

organizational

culture:

131-144.

Newbury

Park,

CA:

Sage.



556

Academy

of

Management

Review April

Meyerson,

D.,

&

Martin,

J.

1987.

Cultural

change:

An

integration

of

three different

views.

Journal

of

Management

Studies, 24:

623-647.

Morgan,

G.,

&

Smircich,

L.

1980.

The case

for

qualitative

research.

Academy

of

Management

Review, 5: 491-500.

Opler,

M.

E. 1945.

Themes

as

dynamic

forces

in

culture.

American

Journal

of

Sociology,

3:

192-206.

Parker,

M.,

&

McHugh,

G. 1991. Five texts in search

of an author:

A

response

to

John

Hassard's

multiple

paradigms

and

organizational

analysis.

Organizational

Studies,

12:

451-457.

Parsons,

T.

1951. The social

system.

Glencoe,

IL: Free

Press.

Pfeffer,

J.

1993. Barriers to

the

advance of

organizational

science:

Paradigm

development

as

a

dependent variable.

Academy

of

Management

Review, 18: 599-621.

Pondy,

L.

R., Frost,

P.

J.,

Morgan,

G.,

&

Dandridge,

T. C.

(Eds.).

1983.

Organizational

symbolism.

Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Poole,

S.,

& Van de

Ven,

A.

1989.

Using

paradox

to build

management

and

organization

theories.

Academy

of

Management Review,

14:

562-578.

Poster,

M.

(Ed.). 1988. Introduction.

Baudrillard: Selected

writings:

1-9.

Stanford,

CA:

Stanford

University

Press.

Putnam,

L.

1983.

The

interpretative

perspective:

An

alternative to

functionalism.

In

L.

Put-

nam, &

M.

Pacanowsky

(Eds.),

Communication

and

organizations.

Beverly

Hills,

CA:

Sage.

Quinn,

R.,

&

Cameron,

K.

(Eds.).

1988. Paradox and

transformation:

Toward a

framework

of

change

in

organization and

management.

Cambridge,

MA:

Ballinger.

Quinn,

R. 1988.

Beyond rational

management:

Mastering

the

paradoxes

and

competing

de-

mands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Radcliffe-Brown,

A. R. 1952.

Structure and

function

in

primitive

society. Glencoe,

IL:

Free

Press.

Reed,

M.

1985. Redirections in

organizational

analysis.

London: Tavistock.

Rosaldo,

R.

1989. Culture and

truth. The

remaking

of

social

analysis.

Boston:

Beacon Press.

Saffold, G.

1988. Culture

traits,

strength, and

organizational

performance:

Moving

beyond

strong

culture.

Academy of

Management

Review, 13:

546-558.

Saussure,

F.

de. 1959. Course

in

general

linguistics. New

York:

Philosophical

Library.

Schein,

E.

H.

1985.

Organizational culture

and

leadership. San

Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Schein,

E.

H.

1991.

What

is

culture?

In

P.

Frost, L.

Moore,

M.

Louis,

C. Lundberg, & J. Martin

(Eds.),

Reframing

organizational

culture:

243-253.

Newbury Park,

CA:

Sage.

Schein,

E.

H.

1992.

Organizational culture and

leadership (2nd

ed.). San

Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Schultz,

M.

1991.

Transitions

between

symbolic

domains

in

organizations.

Organization Stud-

ies,

12:

489-506.

Schultz,

M.

1995. On

studying organizational

cultures:

Diagnosis and

understanding.

Berlin:

Walter de

Gruyter.

Schutz,

A.

1967.

Collected

papers

I:

The

problem of

social

reality

(2nd ed.).

The Hague,

The

Netherlands:

Martinus

Nijhoff.

Selznick,

P.

1949. TVA

and

the

grass

roots.

Berkeley:

University

of

California Press.

Sims, H. P., Jr., & Gioia, D. A. (Eds.). 1986.

The

thinking

organization.

San

Francisco:

Jossey-

Bass.

Skinner,

B. F.

1953. Science

and

human

behavior.

New York:

Macmillan.

Smircich,

L.

1983.

Concepts

of

culture and

organization

analysis.

Administrative

Science

Quarterly, 28:

339-358.



1996

Schultz and Hatch

557

Smircich,

L. 1985. Is the

concept

of culture

a

paradigm

for

understanding

organizations

and

ourselves. In P.

Frost, L. Moore,

M. Louis, C.

Lundberg,

&

J.

Martin (Eds.).,

Organizational

culture:

55-72. Newbury

Park, CA:

Sage.

Smircich, L., & Calds, M. 1987. Post-culture: Is the organizational culture literature dominant

but

dead?

Paper presented

at the third

international conference

on

organizational

sym-

bolism and

corporate

culture,

Milan,

Italy.

Smircich,

L.,

&

Morgan,

G. 1982.

Leadership:

The

management

of

meaning.

Journal

of

Applied

Behavioral

Science, 18: 257-273.

Spradley,

J.

P. 1979. The

ethnographic

interview. New York:

Holt,

Rinehart

and

Winston.

Strauss,

A. L.

1978.

Negotiations.

San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Trice, H.

1993. Occupational

subcultures

in

the

workplace.

Ithaca,

NY:

ILR

Press.

Trice, H., &

Beyer,

J.

1993.

The

cultures of work

organizations.

Englewood

Cliffs,

NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Van

Maanen,

J.

1991. The

smile factory: Work at

Disneyland.

In P.

Frost,

L.

Moore,

M.

Louis,

C.

Lundberg,

&

J.

Martin

(Eds.),

Reframing organizational culture: 58-76.

Newbury

Park,

CA:

Sage.

Van

Maanen,

J.

1995. Style as

theory.

Organization Science, 6:

133-143.

Van

Maanen,

J.,

&

Barley, S. 1984.

Occupational

communities: Culture

and

control in

organiza-

tions.

In

B. M. Staw

& L.

L.

Cummings

(Eds.),

Research in

organizational

behavior, vol.

6: 287-366.

Greenwich,

CT:

JAI

Press.

Van de

Ven, A., &

Poole, M. S. 1988.

Paradoxical

requirements for a

theory

of

organizational

change.

In

R.

Quinn &

K.

Cameron

(Eds.), Paradox

and

transformation:

Toward a

frame-

work of change in organization and management: 19-64. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Weaver, G.

R., & Gioia, D.

1994.

Paradigms

lost:

Incommensurability,

structuration and

their

restructuring

of

organizational

inquiry.

Organization

Studies, 15:

565-591.

Weick, K.

1979.

The social

psychology of

organizing.

Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Westenholz, A.

1993.

Paradoxical thinking

and

change in the

frames of

reference. Organiza-

tion

Studies. 14:

37-59.

Williamson, 0. 1975.

Markets

and

hierarchies: Analysis

and

antitrust

implications. New

York:

Free

Press.

Williamson,

0.

1985. The

economic

institutions

of capitalism.

New York:

Free Press.

Willmott, H. 1990. Beyond paradigmatic closure in organizational enquiry. In J. Hassard &

D.

Pym

(Eds.), The

theory and

philosophy of

organization:

44-62. London:

Routledge.

Willmott, H.

1993a.

Breaking the

paradigm

mentality.

Organization

Studies,

14:

681-721.

Willmott,

H.

1993b.

Paradigm

gridlock.

Organization

Studies, 14:

727-731.

Majken

Schultz is

an

associate

professor

of

organization

theory at

Copenhagen Busi-

ness

School,

Denmark.

She

received

her Ph.D.

from

Copenhagen

Business

School.

Her

research

has

focused

on

organizational

symbolism

and

organizational

culture

studies

and

includes

interests in

the

relations

among

organizational

culture,

identity, and im-

age;

collaboration

within

cross-cultural

networks;

and

organizational

change.

Mary JoHatch is a professor of

organization

theory at

the

Cranfield

School

of

Manage-

ment,

Cranfield

University

(England). She

received

her

Ph.D.

from

Stanford

University.

Her

research

explores

the

symbolic

world

of

organizations

using

interpretive

approaches

and

includes

interests in

organizational

culture,

identity,

and

image;

managerial

humor;

and

narrative

and

metaphor

in

organizing.

living with multiple paradigms 1996

Documents